ROI

Return on investment is basically a financial term that is self-evident when the context is financial. But in a PDC development context it has another definition - one that is purely non economic - livability.

The concept seems to be that if a financial investment increases livability (an obscure word but pure Portland) then that is a positive return on the financial investment.

It is used to justify in some sense those development projects that do not and will not ever generate any economic return on the financial investment of public funds.

My take: It is not that these projects should never be funded - it is that they should not be funded with tax increment funds under the urban renewal rubric. Frankly - I don't believe that this can be disputed.

It seems inherently wrong to invest these public funds - collected under the urban renewal statute for specific purposes - in projects that clearly will not have any financial return on the investment.

Would you be happy with those in charge of your retirement or other investments took your money and use it for projects that they - the fund managers - knew would not return one penny on the expenditure?

Take a peek - you will see why it is my favorite. See too my web page. Also see the attached League of Women's Voters excellent, but brief, analysisof TIF.

Shouldn't property owners be concerned that their property taxes are not going to be used for projects likely to help pay off the debt? E.g., shouldn't investment of TIF funds in social services (not only illegal) be avoided? A free ride.

One has to give the liberals credit for creative thinking - but is it not time that someone raises the issue. Should not the Oregon Attorney General be concerned?

Isn't it an egregious situation when a government agency can take a portion of property owners tax payments and use it contrary to that as envisioned by the urban renewal statute? Taxation without representation?

Livability as a return on investment should not be a rationale for the use of TIF funds.